Cases: Section 1717

Section 1717: 4/1 DCA Decides That An Attorney-Spouse Representing His Other Spouse On A Claim Or Defense, Shared With Spouse, Is Not Automatically Disqualified From Recovering Fees Under Trope

Cases: Section 1717

Inquiry Is Factually Based; At The End, Other Spouse Did Not Show That There Was A True Attorney-Client Independent Representation.                We have posted often on Trope v. Katz, 11 Cal.4th 274 (1995), which held that lawyers appearing in pro per to litigate their own claims cannot recover prevailing party contractual claims under Civil Code

Allocation, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: In A Dispute With Dueling Claims Involving A Purchase Of A Senior Housing Facility, Sellers Properly Were Awarded $722,530.01 In Attorney’s Fees For Breach Of An Escrow Holdback Agreement

Cases: Allocation, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Sellers Wanted Over $2.5 Million—Did Not Happen, Based On Lower Court’s Apportionment Which Was Found Appropriate.                Where different contracts are involved and no success/limited success is involved, California law gives deference to a lower court to fashion a reasonable award and even apportion fees based on the facts.  That is what occurred in Life

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Defendants/Cross-Complainant Adjacent Property Owners Losing Common Area Disputes Were Properly Found Responsible For $927,249.19 In Contractual Attorney’s Fees After Losing Major Parts Of The Litigation

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Prevailing Party Determination Was Discretionary, With The Lower Court Not Abusing Its Discretion.                Under Civil Code section 1717, if no side gets an unqualified win, a lower court determines the prevailing party on the contract by comparing the relief awarded on claims with the parties’ claim demands and their litigation objectives as well as

Construction, Costs, Ethics, Indemnity, Fee Clause Interpretation, Section 1717: $4.176M Contractual Fee Award To General Contractor And Against Owner Affirmed On Appeal, But Expert Witness Costs Award To General Contractor Reversed As A Matter Of Law

Cases: Construction, Cases: Costs, Cases: Ethics, Cases: Fee Clause Interpretation, Cases: Indemnity, Cases: Section 1717

Case Explores Fee Clause Interpretation, An Award Of Fees To An Unlicensed Associate Supervised By A California Attorney, And An Award Of Expert Witness Costs Which Were Not Pled Or Proven As Damages.                The Whiting-Turner Contracting Co. v. 250 Fourth Development LP, Case No. A169470 (1st Dist., Div. 5 June 13, 2025) (unpublished) is

Landlord/Tenant, Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Because Landlord’s Voluntary Dismissal Of An Unlawful Detainer Action Sounded In Contract, Its Dismissal Did Not Entitle Tenant To Attorney’s Fees

Cases: Landlord/Tenant, Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Appellate Court Did Discuss When The Action Is Contract Versus Tort, But The Case Did Not Have Tort Holdover Or Ouster Issues.                In an unlawful detainer case, the nature of the case may determine whether a landlord’s voluntarily dismissal allows the tenant an entitlement to attorney’s fees, which invokes the Santisas principle.  (See Our

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Alter Ego Defendants Obtaining Dismissal Of Declaratory Relief Action Were Entitled To Attorney’s Fees Under A Fees Clause Between Plaintiff And The Signatory Defendant

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

$58,223 Was The Fee Award, With A Credit For Smaller CCP § 128.7 Sanctions.                In ATM Professional, Inc. v. Repiping.com, Inc., Case No. B331046 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Mar. 26, 2025) (unpublished), alter ego defendants obtained a dismissal (based on failure to name an indispensable party, the contract signatory) in a declaratory relief complaint

Prevailing Party, Section 1717: Tenant Prevailed Under Civil Code Section 1717 Based On A Contractual Fees Clause By Defeating Landlord’s Unlawful Detainer Action

Cases: Prevailing Party, Cases: Section 1717

Tenant Proved There Was A Defective 3 Day Notice For Nonpayment, Because Tenant Did Not Contest It Was Claiming Occupancy Of Unleased Areas–$122,855 Was The Fee Award.                 Big Washington LLC v. Superdudes, LLC, Case No. F086483 (5th Dist. Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished) shows how highly contested unlawful detainer actions can produce a

Private Attorney General, Section 1717: Attorney Representing Himself, And Showing No Separate Retainer With Wife, Was Denied Attorney’s Fees For Prevailing Against Lender On Default Interest Penalty Dispute

Cases: Private Attorney General (CCP 1021.5), Cases: Section 1717

Trope Generally Barred Fees, Plus Husband Could Not Show His Financial Interest Allowing For CCP § 1021.5 Fees.                In Honchariw v. FJM Private Mortgage Fund, LLC, Case No. A169447 (1st Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 20, 2024) (unpublished), husband represented himself and his wife, although he had no evidence of an attorney-client relationship with his

Section 1717: Nonsignatories, When Sued As If They Were Parties, Were Entitled To Prevailing Party Fees Under Contractual Fees Clause Pursuant To Civil Code Section 1717

Cases: Section 1717

Case Counsels Against Suing Brokers And Agents Under Boilerplate “Agent/Employee” Pleading Allegations As If They Are Parties.                The result in Dow v. Burrell, Case No. B330855 (2d Dist., Div. 8 Nov. 22, 2024) (unpublished) is a case where a disgruntled residential buyer plaintiff sued seller (who was defaulted) and his brokers, agents, and their

Section 1717: Where Damages Award Was Based On A Sole Contract, Lack Of Fees Clause In The Contract Showed No Fee Entitlement

Cases: Section 1717

$40,230 Fee Award Was Stricken.                   Defendants/cross-complainants defeated plaintiffs’ complaint and obtained cross-complaint damages based on a 2018 construction contract with no attorney’s fees clause, even though the trial judge awarded them $40,230 in fees.  The appellate court in 9 Star Construction v. Dimapasok, Case No. E080273 (4th Dist., Div. 2 Oct.

Scroll to Top